6 Missouri opinions name it 2 courts 1901–2009 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Missouri courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Diederich v. Dempseygreen1 sentence2009The open courts provision is essentially a “second due process clause to the state constitution.” Goodrum v. Asplundh Tree Expert Co., 824 S.W.2d 6, 10 (Mo. banc 1992); see also Blaske v. Smith & Entzeroth, 821 S.W.2d 822, 834 (Mo. banc 1991); Findley v. City of Kansas City, 182 S.W.2d 393, 397-98 (Mo. banc 1990). | 1 | 1 |
Findley v. City of Kansas Citygreen1 sentence2009The open courts provision is essentially a "second due process clause to the state constitution." Goodrum v. Asplundh Tree Expert Co., 824 S.W.2d 6, 10 (Mo. banc 1992); see also Blaske v. Smith & Entzeroth, 821 S.W.2d 822, 834 (Mo. banc 1991); Findley v. City of Kansas City, 782 S.W.2d 393, 397-98 (Mo. banc 1990). | 1 | 1 |
Goodrum v. Asplundh Tree Expert Co.green2 sentences2009The open courts provision is essentially a "second due process clause to the state constitution." Goodrum v. Asplundh Tree Expert Co., 824 S.W.2d 6, 10 (Mo. banc 1992); see also Blaske v. Smith & Entzeroth, 821 S.W.2d 822, 834 (Mo. banc 1991); Findley v. City of Kansas City, 782 S.W.2d 393, 397-98 (Mo. banc 1990). 2009The open courts provision is essentially a “second due process clause to the state constitution.” Goodrum v. Asplundh Tree Expert Co., 824 S.W.2d 6, 10 (Mo. banc 1992); see also Blaske v. Smith & Entzeroth, 821 S.W.2d 822, 834 (Mo. banc 1991); Findley v. City of Kansas City, 182 S.W.2d 393, 397-98 (Mo. banc 1990). | 1 | 1 |
Blaske v. Smith & Entzeroth, Inc.green2 sentences2009The open courts provision is essentially a "second due process clause to the state constitution." Goodrum v. Asplundh Tree Expert Co., 824 S.W.2d 6, 10 (Mo. banc 1992); see also Blaske v. Smith & Entzeroth, 821 S.W.2d 822, 834 (Mo. banc 1991); Findley v. City of Kansas City, 782 S.W.2d 393, 397-98 (Mo. banc 1990). 2009The open courts provision is essentially a “second due process clause to the state constitution.” Goodrum v. Asplundh Tree Expert Co., 824 S.W.2d 6, 10 (Mo. banc 1992); see also Blaske v. Smith & Entzeroth, 821 S.W.2d 822, 834 (Mo. banc 1991); Findley v. City of Kansas City, 182 S.W.2d 393, 397-98 (Mo. banc 1990). | 1 | 1 |
Ricketts v. Kansas City Stock Yards of Mainegreen1 sentence1981The status of the doctrine of uniformity has been succinctly set forth as follows: “Thus, what has emerged from the case law is a standard of reasonableness of the verdict to be determined by the appellate court taking into consideration all of the various factors that the courts have recognized as affecting the issue of reasonableness and utilizing as only one of those factors the notion of uniformity with comparable injuries.” Ricketts v. Kansas City Stock Yards of Maine, 537 S.W.2d 613, 619 (Mo.App.1976). | 1 | 1 |
Ayala v. Philadelphia Board of Public Educationred2 sentences1975See also Ayala v. Philadelphia Board of Public Education, 453 Pa. 584 , 305 A.2d 877, 889 (1973). 1975See also Ayala v. Philadelphia Board of Public Education, 458 Pa. 584 , 305 A.2d 877, 889 (1973). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Williams v. School District of Springfield R-12
green
1 sentence1978In Williams v. School District of Springfield R-12, 447 S.W.2d 256 (Mo.1969), plaintiff school teacher requested at a School Board meeting that she be given reasons for her non-reemployment. | 1 | 1978–1978 |
State v. Patterson
green
1 sentence1971The Rule, 27.20(c) of our Criminal Rules, V.A.M.R., provides that: “Plain errors affecting substantial rights may be considered * * * though not raised in the trial court or preserved for review, * * * when the court deems that manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice has resulted therefrom.” In State v. Patterson, Banc, Mo., 443 S.W.2d 104 (1969), where the alleged error was the failure to give an instruction requested by the defendant, the Court held that it would consider, on a case-to-case basis, whether “manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice” had resulted. | 1 | 1971–1971 |
Missouri Pacific Railway Co. v. B. F. Coombs & Brother Commission Co.
neutral
1 sentence1901There was of course no cross-demand or counterclaim thereby set up in the case so that the question of the statute of limitations can not arise in the ease.” It was held by us when the case was here on the former appeal ( 71 Mo. App. 299 ) that “the statement of the account filed by defendant and claimed to be an account stated, was not an account stated for the reason that the evidence did not show that defendant rendered the statement of the account to any officer or agent of plaintiff who was authorized to receive or adjust the same.” Nor do we discover any evidence in the present case tend | 1 | 1901–1901 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.